Absence of an unemployment affidavit does not bar back wages where the case circumstances justify them.

Respondent No. 1, a teacher who had served the school for over 18 years and was Headmaster, challenged the acceptance of his resignation, alleging that it had been obtained under force and that the Management refused his attempt to withdraw it.

The School Tribunal allowed his appeal, set aside the termination, directed continuation in service, and awarded back-wages from 19 May 2010 until reinstatement.

The High Court’s interim order permitted reinstatement but stayed payment of back-wages; Respondent No. 1 was reinstated on 8 August 2012 and later retired on superannuation.

The question before the High Court was confined to the back-wages awarded for the period from 19 May 2010 to 8 August 2012.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s direction requiring the Management to pay back-wages for the period from 19 May 2010 to 8 August 2012 warranted interference, particularly when the employee had not filed evidence that he was not gainfully employed.

2. Whether the Management’s assertion that it had kept the post vacant and had not drawn salary grant justified shifting the back-wage liability to the State or otherwise disturbing the Tribunal’s order.

Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 provides an employee a right to appeal to the School Tribunal against specified employment orders.

On back-wages, the Court applied Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 776: the employee initially bears the burden of establishing that he was not gainfully employed after termination, but the determination depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court also treated refusal to accept a communication as good service in the circumstances of this case.

The Tribunal had found, on the evidence including the returned envelope, that the Management refused the employee’s withdrawal of resignation; the High Court found no basis to disturb that finding.

Although the employee had filed no affidavit asserting that he was not gainfully employed, the Management likewise produced no evidence that he was gainfully employed.

In light of his long service, the relatively short period before reinstatement, and his eventual return to the same school, the Court considered it improbable that he had sufficient opportunity to obtain gainful employment during that period and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment.

The Management’s contention that it kept the post vacant and did not draw salary grant did not alter the result; the direction was against the Management, not the State, and operating the school understaffed was detrimental to students.

The writ petition was dismissed, the Rule discharged, and the interim relief vacated; there was no order as to costs.